Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by noisician on March 18, 2009 at 8:16pm

wait, are you saying some people are anti-abortion and not pro-life?
either way, can you state you case?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MightyMateo on March 19, 2009 at 4:01am

Yeah, I want to hear your reasoning if you dont mind, just curious.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nulono on March 19, 2009 at 7:20am

Libertarians for Life (l4l.org) does a wonderful job at arguing for prenatal rights from an entirely secular an libertarian viewpoint. They are very thorough; any arguments I'd use could be found there.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Frink on May 12, 2009 at 12:19am

Uh, the Libertarian Party is hands off--that is, pro-choice. Or, at least it was until all the disaffected conservatives hijacked it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by brkfstclblvr on March 19, 2009 at 5:44am

Some people believe the two terms are not synonymous, and most logisticians would likely agree.

"True" pro-lifers perhaps believe in: 1) anti-abortion in all cases, even in the case of rape, incest, woman's health, etc., 2) no dealth-penalty, and 3) anti-war. Each of these examples is a man killing another man.

I have never met anyone like this. Most people who claim to be "pro-life" are only against the first option.

An anti-abortionist would simply be someone who is anti-abortion (in all cases), or perhaps only against abortion when used as a contraceptive, but believes in the death penalty and/or in war.

More people are "anti-abortionists" and fewer people are "pro-lifers," respectively. Also, someone can be pro-choice, but anti-abortion! Wrap your head around that one.

Hope that helps!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nulono on March 19, 2009 at 7:00am

Exactly! I am against abortion except as a last resort to save the mother's life, am against ALL war, and am anti-death penalty.

One can be pro-choice and anti-abortion. I am a fan of liberty, but I don't, for instance, support the right to choose to rob a bank.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nulono on March 19, 2009 at 7:02am

Oh, and why is incest so often lumped in with rape? If the incest wasn't consentual, it falls under "rape", no other category needed. If it was consentual, what's the problem? Birth defects? That falls under "fetal deformity".

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by brkfstclblvr on March 19, 2009 at 7:45am

Incest packs more punch than "fetal deformity." Also, children who are born of relatives won't always be deformed. The parents who later find out they are related may simply want to terminate the pregnancy.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Misty: Baytheist Living! on March 19, 2009 at 7:47am

Yeah.. so would a person who got a bad amino test. I think it should still fall under fetal deformity.
Or rape.
Whatever the case might be.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by brkfstclblvr on March 19, 2009 at 7:55am

Again....children conceived from two related people will not necessarily be deformed, so the "fetal deformity" concept alone is bankrupt.

AND when arguing FOR abortions in the rare case category, "fetal deformity" would not go over well with the pro-lifers. "So what a baby is deformed, we should just automatically get rid of it?" My argument would be, "Well yes in the case of incest!"

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cara Coleen on March 27, 2009 at 2:21am

Sooo... you think it's ok for a dad to have sex with his daughter if he talks her into saying "yes"?? Or even an older brother? Or do you mean as long as both parties are "adults"?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Misty: Baytheist Living! on March 19, 2009 at 7:15am

You are either:
1) Equating robbery with ending a pregnancy
or
2) Comparing apples and oranges.
Please clarify?

As posted below.. I rather agree with you there. What is with the incest thing, anyway?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 20
• Next ›
• Page